9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Magistrate observed: "(O)n going through the evidence adduced before court by the complainant at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there exist grounds to frame charge against A.1 to 3 for the offence punishable Under Section 500 I.P.C." The first respondent preferred a Revision (Criminal Revision Petition No. 104 of 1989) before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Hubli against the order of the learned Magistrate, The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision observing that inasmuch as the learned Magistrate has framed the change on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainant, oral and documentary, and on being satisfied that there was a prima facie case made out against the accused, his order is not liable to be interfered with in Revision. He observed that a Revisional Court can interfere with the order of the trial magistrate framing charges only where it finds that the order of the trial magistrate is illegal, capricious or perverse. Thereupon the first respondent approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for the quashing of the charge. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the complainant is running a chemical factory. The complainant says that he is the founder and President of various co-operative and educational institutions and that he is also the founder-President of Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak Samithi, Siddapur and is connected with certain other educational societies and banks. He says that by sincere and selfless work done in these institutions he has acquired a high status and position in the society and that though he is the cousin of Shri Ramakrishna Hedge, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, he is not associated with his political party. According to the complainant, the first respondent-accused is an active politician. During the relevant period, he was the President of a political party called 'Kranthiranga'. The first respondent aspired to become the Chief Minister of Karnataka but he was frustrated in his efforts by Shri Ramakrishna Hedge who became the Chief Minister. The first respondent was, therefore, waiting for an opportunity to tarnish the image of Shri Ramakrishna Hegde. Shri Ramakrishna Hegde contested to the Legislative Assembly from Kanakapura Constituency. The first respondent set-up his candidate against Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot lie under the Code, and though an application under Section 482 of the CrPC is not barred, the High Court cannot sit and act as the second Revisional Court while exercising the powers under Section 482. This provision can be invoked only where there is an abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Leaned counsel complained that the learned Single Judge has examined the matter as if he were an appellant court and quashed the charge on the approach and that he has exceeded his jurisdiction in doing so and in interfering at an interlocutory stage. 8. Shri Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent justified the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that the complaint is the result of political vendetta, that it is not a genuine grievance and that the first respondent was not acting out of any extraneous motives in making the statement complained of. Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent is an active politician, that subsequently he has also become the Chief Minister of Karnataka and that he made the said statement under the bona fide belief that it is true. He made the said statement, submitted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ends of justice. 11. While it is true that availing of the remedy of the revision to the Sessions Judge under Section 399 does not bar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under Section 482, it is equally true that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. While exercising its inherent power in such a matter it must be conscious of the fact that the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his revisory power in the matter. The High Court should interfere only where it is satisfied that if the complaint is allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of process of Court or that the interests of justice otherwise call for quashing of the charges. A few decision of this Court may usefully be referred at this stage. In Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Ors. 1990CriLJ320 this Court stated in a case of similar nature: Section 482 of the CrPC empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. Though it is neither possible nor' advisable to lay down any inflexible rules to regulate that jurisdiction, one thing, however, appears clear and it is that when the High Court is called upon to exercise this jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not. 13. Examined from the above stand point, it would be evident that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has really gone beyond the purview of Section 482 in quashing the charge. He has not held that the evidence adduced by the complainant, oral and documentary, if unrebutted, would not have warranted the conviction of the accused within meaning of Section 245(1) nor has he held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if made by me during the course of discussions will not come in the way of either parties at the Final disposal of the case on merits. Therefore, for these reasons, I answer the point in the 'AFFIRMATIVE'. 15. The learned Sessions Judge who examined the order of the learned Magistrate has also expressed the opinion that since the magistrate has framed the charge on a proper consideration of oral and documentary evidence and on forming the requisite opinion, no interference is called for. As against this, the judgment of the High Court shows that it has entered into the merits of the case and pronounced upon the truth and correctness of the complaint and the defence, as would be evident from the following observations: 16. In Para 23 the learned Judge states that the oral evidence should have been considered alongwith the documentary evidence and that if that had been done, the learned magistrate, would have came to the conclusion that the imputation made by the accused is "neither intentional nor it amounted in lowering the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of general public and the context in which such a statement was made. " In Para 24 the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .".
The slow-motion becomes much slower-motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. F.I.Rs. are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At every step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petitions. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage or trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll: the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears; the prosecution loses interest - the result is an all too familiar one. We are sad to say that repeated admonitions of this Court have not deterred superior courts from interfering at initial or interlocutory stages or criminal cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases where the interests of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course.
In the circumstances, we cannot acceded to the said contention.
18. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The case shall now proceed according to law and as expeditiously as possible in the circumstances of the case. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
